You'd think Saddam Hussein would be able to say where the WMDs are

[Marla_Singer]

Originally posted by newfangle
Gah, people are still on the WMD thing? What a bunch of bullsnatch.

What you've just said means that you're assuming it doesn't matter whether the reason Bush has given to go to war was fake ?
Interesting.

Ask the Kurds if they think Saddam has ever had weapons.

Actually, when Saddam did so on the 16th of March, 1988, he was protected by his western allies. Neither Americans nor Europeans really bothered about it. Well, we can always think that the US repaired their mistake by saving the kurds 15 years later... however, Kurdistan was autonomous since 1991 and iraqi troops couldn't get inside the country during the next 12 years. Thus, we can't really say that the Iraq war saved the life of any kurd.

George W. Bush had constantly bashed the UN saying their inspections were useless. Colin Powell declared that a nuclear program was re-activated in Iraq and that Saddam could have nuclear weapons in 2004/2005. Tony Blair declared Iraq could launch an attack on the West in 45 minutes. George W. Bush declared during his speech on the State of the Union that Iraq was importing uranium from Nigeria. Donald Rumsfeld declared Jacques Chirac and Gehrard Schröder were behaving like Chamberlain and Daladier in 1938... insinuating Saddam Hussein was already ready to invade the world. Colin Powell had presented to the UN Security Council pictures of supposed WMD laboratories that had been proven fake since then. During the official declaration of war speech, Bush insisted on the fact he was invading Iraq because Saddam failed to disarm.

Everything above had been proven to be fake declarations and you think that's just a bunch of bullsnatch ? Didn't republicans say few years ago a president should be impeached when he'd been proven as lying to the population ? Even if that lie was just about a blowjob in the oval office ? What if the lie is supposed to give a pretext to invade a foreign country then ? It doesn't matter anymore ?

 

[h4ppy]

^^^It's politics, of course they would take the offensive and call for Clintons impeachment, just like what the Democrats are doing now.

Originally posted by zulu9812

So, wouldn't the USA cut Hussein a deal (e.g. commute death to life imprisonment, or even better)

I'm going to echo what others in the thread have undoubtabley said and will say that that would be worse then finding no weapons. Just imagine how pissed off everyone will be if we don't kill him.

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by h4ppy
I'm going to echo what others in the thread have undoubtabley said and will say that that would be worse then finding no weapons. Just imagine how pissed off everyone will be if we don't kill him.

Pinochet never got what he deserved, so there's no guarantee that Saddam will find his way to the gallows.

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by newfangle
Ask the Kurds if they think Saddam has ever had weapons.

Saddam should certainly be punished for that, off with his heaad as well as the heads of those who gave him the weapons he used in that attack.

 

[h4ppy]

The U.S. gave him very few weapons. (the top three providers of weapons to Iraq were France, Russia, and China)

edit- Here is a link but it isn't as good as the one I am looking for.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Originally posted by h4ppy
^^^It's politics, of course they would take the offensive and call for Clintons impeachment, just like what the Democrats are doing now.

No, it's not only a matter of politics. When it's about a blowjob, it doesn't really matter but once it's about declaring war on a foreign country, it's not anymore about politics, it's about Democracy.

Very few wars in the past had been declared on fake reasons. According to me, I see only Hitler's invasion of Poland being based on a supposed attack of Polish forces that had actually never existed. It's the only war I see which had been based on a fake reason before this one.

 

[Archer 007]

You cant find what doesnt exist.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by h4ppy
I'm going to echo what others in the thread have undoubtabley said and will say that that would be worse then finding no weapons. Just imagine how pissed off everyone will be if we don't kill him.

hmm, i'd say how pissed off Americans and Iraqis would be if Saddam isn't killed.

 

[thestonesfan]

I was going to comment, but I think I'll wait until the next time zulu brings this up.

 

[zulu9812]

What difference would it make?

 

[thestonesfan]

None. It was just a cheap shot.

 

[Little Raven]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Very few wars in the past had been declared on fake reasons. According to me, I see only Hitler's invasion of Poland being based on a supposed attack of Polish forces that had actually never existed. It's the only war I see which had been based on a fake reason before this one.

Marla, I share your outrage, but you might want to revise this statement. PLENTY of wars have been fought for "fake" reasons. Check out the Gulf of Tonkin, or the Spanish American war, or the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. History is chock full of em.

There's always a reason for war. Only rarely is it the reason given.

 

[hawai_74]

Yes, he will tell the WMD are in america now (most of them, the rest in China)

 

[Marla_Singer]

Well, Vietnam had been officialy fought to prevent communism to devellop. Algeria had been fought to keep the country French. First Gulf War had been fought mainly to free Kuwait. Afghanistan War had been fought to topple a regime hosting fundamentalist terrorists. Kosovo had been fought to stop Serb nationalists. American civil war had been fought to keep the country united.

Because of the free speech, it's generally speaking truely hard for a democracy to start a war based on fake reasons. Simply because it's easy for media to check. What happened with Iraq is that media simply didn't bother of the fact their government was lying at them.

 

[Little Raven]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Because of the free speech, it's generally speaking truely hard for a democracy to start a war based on fake reasons. Simply because it's easy for media to check. What happened with Iraq is that media simply didn't bother of the fact their government was lying at them.

Which again is nothing new. It took the media years to expose the Gulf of Tonkin. Yellow Journalism got its name from the media's actions prior to the Spanish-American War. The media is often quite happy to be a willing participant to a war-happy leader. As a whole, the industry is only interested in selling papers. They're quite happy to pander to whatever popular sentiment is currently fashionable.

None of this detracts from the seriousness of a president manipulating intelligence to create a false threat as a pretext for invasion, if that's actually what happened. But unfortunately, history is replete with examples of this nature. Even in democracies.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Originally posted by Little Raven
Which again is nothing new.

Yeah of course it's nothing new ! Lapidation is nothing new too ! It's just moving backwards !!

 

[RoddyVR]

Originally posted by archer_007
You cant find what doesnt exist.

HA!!!

shows what you know (about politics). ofcourse you can find what doesnt exist. you just have to be the only one that knows what exactly it is you're looking for and also be the one that checks wheather you've realy found it.